Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Gynocentrism
is what binds feminism together across the political spectrum from left to right. The left differs
from the right because it adds leftist ideology to the gynocentric mix. This
"empowers" women to do a lot of things which traditionalism would not
permit. You might say that the 'left' gives women a whole new set of
power tools.And yet, please observe that there is no general feminist
outcry for women to give up traditional gynocentric advantages from the
the right (i.e. chivalry). That makes perfect sense because if women
actually did give up those traditional advantages, it would make the left version of feminism collapse and expire.

In the end, the feminist left gets the bulk of its blood supply from the feminist right. And that blood supply is nothing less than old-school gynocentrism.

Feminism may be defined as "the project to increase the power of women". Once we get that axiom firmly anchored in enough people's brains, things can begin to move forward.

In other words, feminism is FEMALE SUPREMACISM. And whatever supports or boosts the female supremacist project is a part of feminism's cultural supply chain -- otherwise known as the Feministical Operations Complex (or "femplex" for short).

The femplex extends throughout the entire culture --- all of it, not merely the 'left' or the 'right' of it.

The word "feminism" generates confusion because it is applied to some parts of the femplex, but not others. In consequence, whoever would mobilize against what feminism has wrought lacks an efficient way of thinking and talking about the situation. Clearly, an holistic understanding must be imparted to such people.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

If feminists were honest, they would call themselves what they are:
female supremacists. But they can't afford to be honest because they are
playing a game of stealth and they need to be surreptitious. So they
call themselves "feminists" because it is easier to sell that name to the general public.

The complete phenomenology of female supremacism outdistances
what any given feminist would openly acknowledge to be feminism, and the
word feminism itself operates as a misdirection of
attention. So if we marshall our understanding according to feminist
categories, we will never stop looking where the feminist finger is
pointing, and that finger will never point us toward victory or truth. Indeed, it will never point us toward anything but a continually evolving female supremacist future.

And that is why we should brush aside quite brusquely what feminists say about feminism. We non-feminists in general, and men in particular, are on the
receiving end of feminist innovation. The impact is on US, so we have a perfect right to say what feminism is or isn't from our own end of the transaction. Our input upon that point is as valid as any. We know best of all where the shoe pinches our foot.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

In the end, we aim to establish two things: firstly, what feminism
IS. . . and secondly, whether it is DESIRABLE. Up until now, the
feminists have held a monopoly of discourse in this realm,
thought-policing the avenues of conversation leading into it or out of
it and transforming the world of respectable mainstream opinion into an
echo chamber where only feminist questions are permitted to be raised,
and only feminist answers permitted to be formulated.

Not
surprisingly therefore, the feminists have concluded that feminism is both
desirable and honorable. However, they have consistently shrouded in fog
the plain and simple definition
of feminism, making available so many so-called "answers", and such
inadequate ones, that there is effectively no answer at all. And that, I
submit, is the weak point where we as counter-feminist seekers of truth
must begin our drilling operations.

Supporters of the feminist regime are getting scared. I have a keen nose, and I can smell their fear in the wind. Well they should
be fearful. If I were them, I too would be brimming over with fear and
guilt, and I would be pulling back into my shell with all deliberate
speed, doing as much damage control as possible along my line of
retreat. Then I would stay out of sight for a good long while, quietly
licking my wounds and pulling my thoughts together. Yes, that is what I
would be doing if I were them. I speak from a place of empathy. Get it?

Very well. When all of this is over, when the smoke has cleared and the
dust has settled, post-feminist society will differ profoundly from both
feminist society and pre-feminist society. The lessons of history will
need to be instilled -- and I mean pedagogically instilled! --
and the culture will need to be transformed in such a way that this kind
of thing never, never, ever happens again.

We reject any method of studying feminism which commences by adopting the feminist worldview, recognizing that any feminist definition of feminism can only be a product of that worldview -- a worldview we do not share! As non-feminist philosophers, we understand that you cannot begin within feminism and then argue your way out of it by using feminist vocabulary and discourse to pave your road. No. You must declare yourself alien to feminism as a necessary first step; you must occupy the Archimedian standpoint and proceed from there.

The radical feminist Audre Lorde once famously remarked that "you cannot dismantle the master's house with the master's tools." As non-feminist philosophers, we understand feminism on independent terms, and we have not formulated our conclusion through any feminist chain of reasoning. So our strategy is to reframe the entire discussion, forcing them to engage our issues on our terms while roadblocking their customary avenues of evasion.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Feminism has driven you fifty miles out into the country and left you there to fend for yourselves. Yes, it is unwise to take rides from strangers. Now you've got some walking to do, but hopefully the exercise will prove beneficial. I am the messenger.

As non-feminists, we may concur that feminism is not the best plan. That is why we are not feminists. And so whatever we severally understand feminism to be, we can at least agree that the word feminism itself cannot mean anything good. We can agree that the word is contaminated, and that we should brand it with a social stigma. And we can agree that to be not a feminist is a thing of decisive consequence, and that whosoever repudiates feminism must do so with adamantine resolution. It is no light matter to say you are not a feminist. It is a weighty decision, and not some passing fancy that you will toss away tomorrow like a will-o-the-wisp, only to snatch it back two days later so you can toss it away again.

So again, we have concurred that the word feminism signifies something not-good. And having done this, we may likewise concur that feminism itself must be targeted for corrective operations. But in order for that to happen, we must concur upon a target -- which brings back the problem that we have not concurred upon a definition. So it looks like we must, eventually, somehow, concur upon a definition of feminism. And having done so, we may at last reach target consensus, so as to know precisely where we should direct our operations.

Gynocentrism is the practice of placing women's safety, comfort and general well-being at the center of social or political concern, and structuring life in the objective service of such interests. It extends no further than that, and would NOT include placing the feminine point of view at the center of one's worldview. That is to say, gynocentrism does not violate the boundary of inner space by requiring a person (male in particular) to think and feel a certain way. In sum, gynocentrism is not totalitarian.

Gynonormativism goes the extra step. Using gynocentrism as a foundation, gynonormativism prioritizes the feminine point of view hierarchically within the culture, on both a political and interpersonal level, and pressures males in particular to adopt a feminine system of values as a component of one's authentic personality. In this manner, gynonormativism is totalitarian. We would understand feminism as a gynonormativeproject, while acknowledging that it could not have come into operation without a preexisting base of gynocentricity in the traditional culture.

Gynonormativization is integral to the establishment of female supremacy.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

There is a sizeable centrist party, a tribe of fence-sitters who harbor the illusion of middle ground between pro-feminist and anti-feminist. These folk are nearly always stuffed with clichés, marked by the superficiality of their political understanding, and saturated by the conventions of feminist discourse. They fail to comprehend that their middle ground is a transitory condition and that the growth of polarization will finally shrink that ground to nothing. In the end they will be squeezed off their fence and forced to take a stand -- either to the side of female supremacism, or to the side opposing it.

I would wager some smart money that if you tallied up the evil which men
do in this world, and the evil which women do, the two would perfectly
balance each other on the scales of karma. I have yet to see anybody
make a plausible case otherwise. But friend, you and I know how the
world works. Male wrongdoing is deemed inherently more newsworthy, and
treated accordingly. When a man does something spectacularly BAD, it is
naturally a spectacle and the chattering classes will chatter on and on
about it. When a woman does something spectacularly bad, or worse, does
something unspectacular but more significantly bad, the story
will get a brief notice -- very much like a rock tossed into the ocean
which makes a quickly-forgotten splash before it sinks out of sight
forever.

Monday, January 21, 2013

Counter-feminist analysis concludes that feminism and female supremacism are interchangeable terms, and we assert that no other analysis will generate effective political traction.

You may agree, or not, that feminism equals female supremacism -- yet female supremacism as a datum is not to be doubted. It is out there. It is real. It is a part of the world. And if you are serious in opposing it you cannot avoid asking how it relates to feminism.

How would the absence of one affect the other, and what is their exact chemistry of co-existence? Are the two at odds with each other? Are they symbiotic with each other? Are they part-and-parcel of each other? Or do they run on separate rails oblivious to each other? If you oppose feminism, and yet believe that female supremacism is a separate object all by itself, then how precisely does female supremacism factor into your political calculations? Do you even think about this at all? How can you not entertain such questions?

Sunday, January 20, 2013

We of the non-feminist sector claim the status of an autonomous power with respect to the feminist power on earth, and we demand the full measure of diplomatic courtesy due to such a status. A number of behaviors, on the part of any feminist or feminist group, will be considered acts of discourtesy or outright aggression -- and the codification of such behaviors will be an ongoing project in the course of clarificatory discourse. For the good of the entire world, we advise the feminists to seek non-feminist counsel upon all matters concerning law, culture, public policy, and the common welfare.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Feminism divides broadly into two cultural cohorts: Academic feminism
(more intellectual), and pop feminism (less intellectual). These make
opposing ends of a polarity, with a continuum stretching between them.

Feminism as a whole needs both the academic and the pop cohorts. The
academic cohort is needful so that feminism will have an intellectual
vanguard -- so that the snake will have a head, in other words.

The pop cohort is needful so that the vanguard ideology will be demographically incarnated in numbers -- so that the snake will have a body, in other words.

Sophisticated ideas originate from the academic cohort, and trickle down to the pop cohort by the process of popularization.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Remember that ALL feminism is packed into a system of interwoven karma.
ALL feminism contributes to an evolutionary trajectory which points
toward a radical feminist future. And ALL feminists are
participants in that trajectory by the simple act of participating in
feminism itself. So listen to what the radical feminists are
saying, because they are endlessly discussing the kind of world they
wish to create -- namely, the kind where "justice" has been obtained
through a virtual elimination of males. That is the kind of world toward
which ALL feminism, in its conjoined organic logic, is gradually
conducting us. Even the feminists who don't talk about such things are contributory to this. Yes, I said ALL feminism -- and all feminists. Not just the radical kind. Feminism is
monolithic, and if you've seen one feminist, you've seen them all.

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The only way to tell people what they don't want to hear, is to tell it in way that offers no choice. I will speak of one such way. First, bear in mind that most humans are herd animals. Above all things, they crave a stable sense of belonging, in the company of others who likewise crave such belonging and have agreed upon a general plan to make it happen.

So, if you are the bearer of news which challenges the herd and its stable plan, you must know that the herd's considerable resources will be mobilized against you in order to nullify your message. It is not, in the end, a question of "truth", but rather a collective will-to-believe backed by the power of unfailing repetition and communal reinforcement within an echo chamber.

Your message will take root and grow only if you make the herd disintegrate. Do that, and their power to dismiss your message will disintegrate in tandem. And when people get to this point, they will instinctively cast about in search of a new herd they can join. You know how joiners are. So it is a good idea to prepare something they can cling to, that they will be more readily persuaded to make the jump.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

In order to make feminism answer for itself we must reduce it to a definite something -- a target of understanding -- that can be held answerable. And our quest for that definite target reveals a dynamic underlying process that pervades the world of events and conditions, a thing can better be described than defined. In short, we have learned to understand feminism as a social organism, and we have seen that this organism includes many things you wouldn't necessarily call feminism at all.

This can be very confusing, but the meta-logic of female supremacism binds it all together and makes it both intelligible and targetable. The apparent chaos of conflicting tendencies and rules will line up and make sense when you consider that feminism, in its entirety, is identical with female supremacism. Those two are the very same thing. So we may use "feminism" and "female supremacism" interchangeably, and we may gradually educate the public to do likewise

Advocacy for
women's interests, in whatever form, will increase female advantage and
thereby increase female power. Yet the advocates involved in such work
needn't feel any conscious hostility toward men. They need only carry on industriously,
disavow anti-male sentiments, and draw attention away from
high-disaffection feminists by such distractionary statements as "not
all feminists are like that", or "I'm not that kind of feminist", or
"those people are only fringe extremists." At times, they will deny that
such feminists are even feminists at all. Still, the latter will
continue to exist, and to do what they do, while their milder sisters
look the other way. In this manner, liberal feminism operates as a cover story for radical feminism.

Feminism's binding principle and driving force is
disaffection toward men and maleness. This is arrayed on a spectrum,
with mild disenchantment to the lower end, and vitriolic animosity,
bordering on psychopathic, to the upper. If disaffection toward men, as men,
did not exist in the world generally, then feminism itself would not
exist. Feminism is not driven by vehemence about mere issues and
abstract principles. Its politics are rooted in personal feelings about
men. Feminism's political, you would say, is personal. And so personal emotion is the only thing that keeps feminism in motion. And this is true to an extent that might be termed metaphysical. In sum, feminism as a whole is metaphysically anti-male, or a priori anti-male.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

As I have said many times, the time for argument is past. Feminists and their cohorts are ideologues, dogmatists and cultists, and you will never persuade them of anything they do not wish to believe. It is futile. Utterly futile. These people are takers and manipulators, and fair play is the last thing they care about. So we need to take a very different tack with them.

Feminism is the aggressor, and feminist tricks are a manifestation of feminist aggression. And since the aggressor sets the terms of engagement, we non-aggressors are permitted to mirror those terms proportionally. That is, we are morally entitled to answer feminist aggression by throwing their tricks back at them as much, or as little, as policy or prudence may dictate.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

More and more women are speaking out against feminism and a lot of men
in the activated community are acting cynical about the motives of
such women. Such men are voicing fears of "infiltration" by such
women, and are sure that such women are up to no good. I understand what
these men are saying and, up to a point, I share their concerns. It is
undoubtedly true that an uncontrolled female presence in the wrong
sectors will set things back -- and I say this in a spirit of realism
and pragmatism, trusting that others will weigh my sentiments
accordingly.

However, I cannot agree that openly anti-feminist rhetoric
among women is anything but a positive development. Seriously, if women themselves are
denouncing feminism it cannot bode well for feminism, can it?

But I would allow that SOME of these women are plotting to subvert
male autonomy, and hence, the non-feminist revolution as a whole. That said, I would
propose a simple method for detecting them and weeding them out. You
must monitor every purportedly anti-feminist woman to ascertain that
she is walking the pro-male walk, and not simply talking the
anti-feminist talk. So question the candidate about the sanctity of male
space. If for any reason at all, she bristles at the idea that men
should have times and places where women are excluded, you should
immediately toss her application onto the reject pile. By contrast,
women who are fine with that idea will get a relatively high
security clearance, and be groomed as leaders of other women.